Defining external regulation on standardized test instructions: A key variable for the academic success of students in the digital world
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Determining the degree of external regulation by educators in the increasing digitalization of the school context is one of the most important issues we are facing in the future of students' learning. Educators must determine how to set up the learning environment and amount of direction provided to elicit their student's best performance. Standardized test assessments of cognitive abilities provide an important reference point for operationalizing how degree of examiner structure and direction during the administration of these tests may be related to individual differences in student performance. Our analysis of standardized instructions of several different measures of cognitive assessments illustrates how these assessments vary in their degree of external regulation, such as specifications of set up of physical environment, amount of instruction and feedback provided, examiner direction during administration and timing factors. Based on a coding scheme to identify and quantify these factors, we present a proof of concept by examining whether degree of external regulation may explain individual differences in test performance, particularly in at-risk learners such as child and youth with ADHD. Operationalizing what we have learned from years of refining instructions for standardized test administration can serve as a useful reference point for determining factors to optimize student learning within the digitalization of learning environments. This paper discusses the importance of the environment (more specifically, the testing environment) for students' success, particularly at-risk learners such as students with ADHD. To illustrate how environmental structure can impact student performance, instructions for standardized test assessments of cognitive skills were used to show how environmental structure can be operationalized in learning environments. Standardized test assessments of cognitive abilities provide an important reference point for operationalizing how degree of examiner structure and direction during the administration of these tests is related to individual differences in student performance. In this paper, we surveyed the instructions of some of the most common standardized assessments of cognitive abilities (intelligence and executive function tasks) to operationalize the types and degree of structure provided as part of the instructions and administration of these tests. Then, we identified illustrative studies to demonstrate how the nature and amount of examiner direction may explain individual differences in test performance, particularly in at-risk learners such as students with ADHD. Finally, the relevance for at-risk learners in online learning environments is discussed, given that this environment may be particularly challenging for educators to control and regulate to optimize learners' success. • Educators must determine how to set up the learning environment and amount of direction provided to elicit their students' best performance. • Common standardized assessments of cognitive abilities vary in their degree of structure. • High structure tests will require less internal regulation from the examinee. • At-risk learners require more external regulation to elevate their performances.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,103 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».